3 ms·

I don't think it's psychopathic or fascist to expect that individuals be able to sustain themselves. Nor do I believe it's right to enslave the collective in or

I don't think it's psychopathic or fascist to expect that individuals be able to sustain themselves. Nor do I believe it's right to enslave the collective in order to provide a cushion on which those who fail to do so may land. I don't think it just to mandate the protection of people from the full consequences of their own misfortune, failure, or inadequacy. This is the domain of (voluntary) charity. If you take a harder look at the disproportionate contributors you mention, you'll find that they were motivated to persist at problems for very long hours, often for many years without respite, and for very little reward beyond satisfying their own impulses. None of this indicates poor work ethic, or a reluctance to take responsibility for one's own actions and their consequences.

kaba0 4y ago
I don’t know, it is entirely different to sort of become an addict of a specific problem until you solve it vs the day-to-day’s life work addict. There are plenty of geniuses who did terribly in work/academia, etc, or who were literally outcasts from society.
SamPatt 4y ago
Individuals can sustain themselves without needing to be forced to spend their entire childhoods attending educational institutions. There is proof of this everywhere. The vast majority of humans throughout history never engaged in such a system, and plenty of contemporary humans don't either. What is your ideology?
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  > The vast majority of humans throughout history never engaged in such a system It's true, in previous eras children were put straight to work as soon as they were useful. This has been true in every agrarian society across all cultures. Society increased in complexity to the point that it's quite hard to become an independent adult if you go straight to work as a young child, hence the need for an education. However the goal has always been the same: condition yourself (skills, mindset, habits, behaviour, etc.) as required to become a functional, independent contributor to society. What is new and unusual is the idea that children should have a "childhood" of recreation, protected from the realities of work and life. Attending an educational institution as a child is much preferable to working on a farm, or in a mine, don't you think?

kaba0 4y ago

I don’t know, it is entirely different to sort of become an addict of a specific problem until you solve it vs the day-to-day’s life work addict. There are plenty of geniuses who did terribly in work/academia, etc, or who were literally outcasts from society.

SamPatt 4y ago

Individuals can sustain themselves without needing to be forced to spend their entire childhoods attending educational institutions. There is proof of this everywhere. The vast majority of humans throughout history never engaged in such a system, and plenty of contemporary humans don't either. What is your ideology?

thegrimmest 4y ago
> The vast majority of humans throughout history never engaged in such a system It's true, in previous eras children were put straight to work as soon as they were useful. This has been true in every agrarian society across all cultures. Society increased in complexity to the point that it's quite hard to become an independent adult if you go straight to work as a young child, hence the need for an education. However the goal has always been the same: condition yourself (skills, mindset, habits, behaviour, etc.) as required to become a functional, independent contributor to society. What is new and unusual is the idea that children should have a "childhood" of recreation, protected from the realities of work and life. Attending an educational institution as a child is much preferable to working on a farm, or in a mine, don't you think?